ReviewRevista clinica espanola2023
What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?
Review in Revista clinica espanola, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Provincial Disparities in the COVID-19 Burden: Hospital Data Analysis from Iran.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2026Article
- A pilot study on the pattern of COVID-19 information sources and its associated factors among the public in Qatar: a cross-sectional survey.Qatar medical journal · 2025Article
- Impact of COVID-19 on the neglected tropical diseases: a scoping review.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2024Article
- A Narrative Overview of Coronavirus Infection: Clinical Signs and Symptoms, Viral Entry and Replication, Treatment Modalities, and Management.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Article
- Stability of SARS-CoV-2 on Commercial Aircraft Interior Surfaces with Implications for Effective Control Measures.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More than three years have passed since the first case of a new coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) in the city of Wuhan (Hubei, China). The Wuhan Institute of Virology was founded in that city in 1956 and the country's first biosafety level 4 laboratory opened within that center in 2015. The coincidence that the first cases of infection emerged in the city where the virology institute's headquarters is located, the failure to 100% identify the virus' RNA in any of the coronaviruses isolated in bats, and the lack of evidence on a possible intermediate animal host in the contagion's transmission make it so that at present, there are doubts about the real origin of SARS-CoV-2. This article will review two theories: SARS-CoV-2 as a virus of zoonotic origin or as a leak from the high-level biosafety laboratory in Wuhan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.